There was a time in human history, not that long ago actually but it seems like eons now, that the ideal state of mind when judging others, was to be as objective as possible. The notion is built on the idea that all men are created equal and all are to be judged by the same moral standard. It is symbolized in the statue of Lady Justice, weighing her cases blindfolded.

A murder is a murder no matter who committed it, whoever the victim, and whatever the circumstances; the idea being that men are judged by the contents of their character, not by the color of their skin, or social class.

That's no longer the case. When the Left embraced relativism, it accepted with it, it's nasty little sibling, subjectivism. So, whereas one murderer gets life for killing a human being, another is getting away with a few years, depending on the circumstances and the history of the persons involved.

Where social classes have largely disappeared from most Western societies, other victim groups have been created to keep the social warfare alive. It's done on the basis of the dialectic of oppressors versus oppressed, or postmodern varieties thereof. Persons are judged and treated according to the victim group they stem from. It happens to also nicely pave the way for the apartheid of Sharia law, one law for the natives, another for Muslims - that is, as a first stage to total submission.

Some liberals like to think of themselves as non judgmental, but that moral neutrality is a myth. We discriminate all of the time, but no longer based on an objective standard of ethics, but by different standards depending on whom we are judging: we are guilty of practicing the hypocrisy of reversed discrimination.

The same is true in international relations. One commentator on a post on the shocking events in the waters of the eastern Mediterranean this week, assures us Israel is held by higher standards than the Palestinians, because they are a liberal democracy, not the usual Middle Eastern hellhole ruled by a dictator.

How evil and unjust that double standard is, can be measured by its effect: in Western culture it is responsible for the 'down with us' syndrome, effectively foisting upon ourselves a handicap, not unlike fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. And that is just to make it fair, because the other feller is only half our size. Yet we stand idly by when two thugs are bashing each others heads in, since neither seems to know any better. (In the civil world - thank Heaven - they still end up in prison, maybe.)

If you project that on to the world of international relations we end up precisely where we are today: with Israel condemned for defending itself, and the thugocracy of Iran getting away with enough fissile material to produce two nuclear bombs. How's that for a debilitating effect of subjectivism?

It seeks to delegitimize Israel's right to exist and it seeks to make it impossible for Israel to defend itself. If these aims are met, Israel's destruction will become an historic inevitability.

Far from advancing the peace process, the result of this effort is the destruction of the state of Israel, which is rationalized in any sort of way: it is racist because it is Jewish, yet the country consists of Jews, Christians and Muslims which are treated as equals before the law. But Muslim countries on the other hand are backward dictatorships, so their discrimination against women and religions other than Islam, do not matter because they're held to lower standards.

Muslim countries have never had any intention of tolerating the liberal democracy the size of a postage stamp in the midst of its conquered lands. On top of that, they have now managed to get the Western postmodern Left on its side in a Red-Green fascist coalition; the brew is toxic in the extreme.

A commentator in the US has made it be known that ... of course the aid convoy was a ruse to cover the real objective: breaking the blockade of Gaza so that heaven knows what may be brought into the port. There's nothing illegal about the blockade and what's more, it's sheer common sense. Only subjectivists go to the point of requiring entire countries and cultures to commit suicide in order to be considered ethical.

Time and again, whatever patches of land the Iraelis restored to the Palestinians, it always became a launching pad for violence and terror. They have no reason to trust the Palestinians with whatever concession in the name of the unspeakable 'peace process". The hellhole of Gaza itself is a case in point.

At first, in the relativist's reasoning, there's no moral difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians: both have an equal right to exist and resist. Initially it makes no difference that Israel is a liberal democracy that treats all equal before the law and the Palestinians have proven themselves time and again the pit of moral depravity. They then move over to the other side and call for Israel's destruction.

Welcome to the upside down, inside out world of moral subjectivism applied to diplomacy and international relations.